It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
In sum the communist probably have murdered something like 110,000,000, or near two-thirds of all those killed by all governments, quasi-governments, and guerrillas from 1900 to 1987. Of course, the world total itself it shocking. It is several times the 38,000,000 battle-dead that have been killed in all this century's international and domestic wars. Yet the probable number of murders by the Soviet Union alone--one communist country-- well surpasses this cost of war. And those murders of communist China almost equal it.
We are not having global warming. We ate on a period of global cooling. I’m guessing that little blurb was more of a disclaimer than anything else but no the sun is what impacts our climate not suvs and cow farts. Even NASA is predicting the Solar Minimum. Here’s an article on the Solar Minimum I found on Theodore Whites fb page worth s read and he also cites Zarkhova abruptearthchanges.com... sHTr_vCb13Kc
originally posted by: pthena
originally posted by: ThirdEyeofHorus
Um yah, no, it’s not reflecting what’s ahead in the coming Solar Minimum. I’m guessing you’re not aware of it. www.google.com...
I did see some smarter than me people discussing it on a more science based subforum a while back.
At the bottom of the page that you linked to was a link to an update There Probably Won't Be A “Mini Ice Age” In 15 Years Evidently, the story writer contacted the astronomer scientist for clarification.
Since our article yesterday about how reduced solar activity could lead to the next little ice age, IFLScience has spoken to the researcher who started the furor: Valentina Zharkova. She announced the findings from her team's research on solar activity last week at the Royal Astronomical Society. She noted that her team didn't realize how much of an impact their research would have on the media, and that it was journalists (including ourselves) who picked up on the possible impact on the climate.
. . .
However, Zharkova ends with a word of warning: not about the cold but about humanity's attitude toward the environment during the minimum. We must not ignore the effects of global warming and assume that it isn't happening. “The Sun buys us time to stop these carbon emissions,” Zharkova says. The next minimum might give the Earth a chance to reduce adverse effects from global warming.
Have you noticed that neither one of those I F#cking Love Science stories is dated? When the heck were they written? Four years ago? Five, 10?
I take undated religious texts with a grain of salt.
originally posted by: gortex
a reply to: JonU2
It seems to me religion is hardwired into our being , it's man who decides the direction that need for belief takes which is where things seem to break down , I don't think we can be separated from the need to believe as it must serve a purpose in our psychi.
Atheism is more or less secular.
Secular Humanism believes in man in place of God and this sees man as not needing God or His Laws. The Humanist Manifesto reads much like the Communist Manifesto.
Humanists are concerned for the well being of all, are committed to diversity, and respect those of differing yet humane views. We work to uphold the equal enjoyment of human rights and civil liberties in an open, secular society and maintain it is a civic duty to participate in the democratic process and a planetary duty to protect nature’s integrity, diversity, and beauty in a secure, sustainable manner.
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
originally posted by: JBIZZ
a reply to: BrianFlanders
Without religion, higher education wouldn't exist, in turn western civilization wouldn't exist, in turn America wouldn't exist, in turn computers wouldn't exist, in turn the internet wouldn't exist, in turn your post wouldn't exist. Without God you wouldn't exist.
originally posted by: Oldtimer2
a reply to: JonU2
What I think is funny it's the atheist's who whine and complain how they are smarter then those who follow a religion,all that shows is they want to be special,has nothing to do with intelligence,otherwise they would keep mouth shut and show results,just like a Vegan,how do you know if someone is a Vegan? they will tell you
originally posted by: JonU2
a reply to: GreenGunther
Throughout the world, I cannot understand why so many people cling onto these beliefs.
originally posted by: whereislogic
The question is simple: Did matter, order, the marvelous universe and the unexplainable* miracle of life occur purely through the outworkings of chance, or were they produced through the design of a great Creator? The former is so implausible that it takes more faith to believe in this materialistic philosophy than it does to believe in God. It remains true that “the heavens are declaring the glory of God; The skies above* [Or “expanse”] proclaim the work of his hands”—Ps. 19:1; Job 9:8; Isa. 40:26; Jer. 10:12.
*: unexplainable from a purely materialistic perspective, ...
Fine-Tuning—Evidence of Purposeful Design?
When they examine the laws of nature, many investigators balk at the notion of a cosmos without purpose. They are impressed, for example, by the fundamental forces that regulate the universe. The laws underlying these forces appear to have been fine-tuned in such a way as to produce a universe capable of supporting life. “Changing the existing laws by even a scintilla could have lethal consequences,” says cosmologist Paul Davies. For example, if protons were slightly heavier than neutrons, rather than slightly lighter as they are, all protons would have turned into neutrons. Would that have been so bad? “Without protons and their crucial electric charge,” explains Davies, “atoms could not exist.”
The electromagnetic force attracts electrons to protons, allowing molecules to form. If this force were significantly weaker, electrons would not be held in orbit around the nucleus of an atom, and no molecules could form. If, on the other hand, this force were much stronger, electrons would be stuck to the nucleus of an atom. In that case, chemical reactions and life would simply be impossible.
A slight difference in the electromagnetic force would affect the sun and the solar energy that reaches our earth. Such a difference could easily make photosynthesis in plants difficult or impossible. So the precise strength of the electromagnetic force determines whether life on earth is possible or not.
The book Science & Christianity—Four Views has an interesting way of illustrating the delicacy of the balance of forces and elements in the cosmos. The writer asked his readers to visualize an explorer’s visit to an imaginary “control room for the whole universe.” There, the explorer observes rows and rows of dials that can be set to any value, and he learns that each has to be calibrated to a precise setting in order for life to be possible. One dial sets the strength of the force of gravity, one the strength of electromagnetic attraction, another the ratio between the mass of the neutron and the proton, and so on. As the explorer examines these numerous dials, he sees that they could have been set to different values. It also becomes clear to him, after meticulous calculation, that even a small change in any one of the dial settings would modify the architecture of the cosmos in such a way that life in it would cease to exist. Yet, each dial is set to precisely the right value needed to keep the universe running and habitable. What should the visitor deduce about how the dials came to be set the way they are?
Astronomer George Greenstein states: “As we survey all the evidence, the thought insistently arises that some supernatural agency—or, rather, Agency—must be involved. Is it possible that suddenly, without intending to, we have stumbled upon scientific proof of the existence of a Supreme Being?”
What do you think? Which explanation best fits the fine-tuning observable in the cosmos? Purposeful design or mindless process?
‘We’re Just Here—That’s All There Is to It’
Atheists, of course, have their counterarguments. Some shrug off the apparent fine-tuning in nature, saying: ‘Of course the observable universe is capable of supporting human life. If it weren’t, we wouldn’t be here to worry about it. So there’s really nothing to explain. We’re just here, and that’s all there is to it.’ But do you find that a satisfying explanation for our existence?
Another argument is that it will someday be proved that only one possible set of numbers can work in the equations that express the fundamental laws of nature. That is, the dials mentioned above had to be turned to the right settings for the universe to exist at all. Some say, ‘It’s that way because it had to be that way!’ [whereislogic: the 'by necessity'-scenario or argument I mentioned earlier] Even if this circular reasoning were true, it would still not provide an ultimate explanation for our existence. In short, is it just a coincidence that the universe exists and that it is life-supporting?
In efforts to explain by natural processes alone the design and fine-tuning evident in the cosmos, still others turn to what has been called the multiverse, or many-universe, theory. According to this hypothesis, perhaps we live in just one of countless universes—all of which have different conditions, but none of which have any purpose or design. Now according to that line of reasoning and the laws of probability, if you have enough universes, eventually one of them should have the right conditions to support life. However, there actually is no scientific evidence to support the multiverse theory. It is pure speculation.
After stating that he did not subscribe to that hypothesis, Nobel Prize-winning biochemist Christian de Duve said: “In my opinion, life and mind are such extraordinary manifestations of matter that they remain meaningful, however many universes unable to give rise to them exist or are possible. Diluting our universe with trillions of others in no way diminishes the significance of its unique properties, which I see as revealing clues to the ‘Ultimate Reality’ that lies behind them.”